Advertisement

Sustainable Modes of Mobility in New Urban Neighborhoods in UAE: Assessing Walkability and Bikability

  • Khaled Galal AhmedEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)

Abstract

Sustainable modes of mobility within local communities are not only enhancing the physical and mental health of the residents, but they have significant social benefits. As residents are encouraged to abandon using their cars to access locally provided amenities, they develop more cohesive social relationships within their local communities. UAE has recently adopted a sustainable development agenda that endorses eco-community development where the conventional car-dependent sprawl urban forms are being transformed into more compact ones. This new trend has been reflected in recent new designs of urban communities in which it is claimed that sustainable urbanism principles, including sustainable modes of mobility, have been considered. However, there is a lack of reliable evidence that can assess the prospective performance of these new urban forms in terms of walkability and bikability. This study compares ‘walkability’ and ‘bikability’ scores, that range from 0 to 100, in both a conventionally developed urban sprawl neighborhood, and a recently designed more compact urban neighborhood. For investigating the two modes of mobility, the UMI urban modeling simulation tool has been utilized in this study to test walkability and bikability proximity to the points of interest for the provided local amenities in each of the two case studies. Walkability and bikability scores were obtained through constructing a pedestrian/cyclist travel network and performing a series of shortest path calculations using Dijkstra’s algorithm. It has been surprisingly found out that the new neighborhood achieved lower walkability and bikability scores despite being more compact where walkability scored 61 versus 66 for the conventional sprawl case study. The same result has been found out for bikability, where the score was 85 for the former and 96 for the later. These unexpected results indicate that the new ‘compact’ design has not reached to a sufficient and appropriate degree of compactness that takes into consideration not only the Floor Area Ratio, but also other important walkability/bikability factors including catchment distances, variety and sufficiency of provided amenities, global and destination weights of amenities, street intersection densities and average block length.

Keywords

Walkability Bikability Mobility Neighborhoods Sustainability UMI UAE 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The researchers thank the United Arab Emirates University for funding this project under the Center-Based Interdisciplinary Grant Program, Grant No. 31R104, 2017.

References

  1. Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council: Abu Dhabi Community Facility Planning Standards, Standards Report. Version 1.0. ADUPC, Abu Dhabi (2014a)Google Scholar
  2. Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council: Abu Dhabi Public Realm Design Manual. ADUPC, Abu Dhabi (2014b)Google Scholar
  3. ADHA (Abu Dhabi Housing Authority): Abu Dhabi National Housing Guidelines For Integrated Communities, Planning Guidelines. V 1.0. ADHA, Abu Dhabi (2016)Google Scholar
  4. Al Ain, Ghareba: http://www.keoic.com/Projects/Details/1231 (2017). Last accessed 11 Aug 2017
  5. Barton, H. (ed.): Sustainable Communities. Earthscan Publications Ltd., Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  6. City Form Lab: Urban Network Analysis (UNA). http://cityform.mit.edu/en (2018)
  7. Department of Urban Planning and Municipalities: https://www.dpm.gov.abudhabi/en (2018). Last accessed 11 April 2018
  8. Frey, H.: Designing the City: Towards A More Sustainable Urban Form. Spon Press, London (1999)Google Scholar
  9. Koschinsky, J., Talen, E., Alfonzo, M., Sungduck, L.: How walkable is Walker’s paradise? Environ. Plan. 44(2), 343–363 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. Masoud, M.: Evaluation of social capital, considering sociability and walkability in urban fabrics: the case of Isfahan City, Iran, Asian. Soc. Sci. 7(10), 216–228 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. Mazumdar, S., Learnihan, V., Cochrane, T., Davey, R.: The built environment and social capital: a systematic review. Environ. Behav. 50(2), 119–158 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Paranagamage, P., Price, A., Khandokar, F., Austin, S.: Urban design and social capital: lessons from a case study in Braunstone, Leicester. In: 3rd World Construction Symposium: Sustainability and Development in Built Environment Proceedings, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 20–22 June (2014)Google Scholar
  13. Planning Department, Dubai Government: Community Facilities Standards. https://www.dm.gov.ae/en/Business/PlanningAndConstruction/Documents/Planning%20Standards/Community+facilities+standards+list.pdf (2018). Last accessed 12 June 2018
  14. Rogers, H., Gardner, K., Carlson, C.: Social capital and walkability as social aspects of sustainability. Sustainability 5, 3473–3483 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sustainable Design Lab. Homepage. http://web.mit.edu/sustainabledesignlab/projects/umi/index.html. Last accessed 29 Aug 2018
  16. Trimarchi, M.: What’s a walk score? https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/walk-score1.htm (2018). Last accessed 24 July 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United Arab Emirates UniversityAl AinUAE

Personalised recommendations